EMBARGO: 6. 30 p. m. Saturday, 3 October 1970
" FOUR CCIRNERS"
TELEVISION I\ TERVIEW GIVEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER
KROT OTNO B VEWO
Interviewer : Mike Willesee
Recorded on 2 October for screenin~ g on 3 October 1970
We open our programme this week in Canberra, and it's been quite a
hectic week in the National Capital. The controversy wie might loosely term " law
and order" reached a peak with an Opposition motion ofZ No Confidence in the' : ri.-. ne
Minister; Sir Henry Bolte stepped in and trumped that with a $ 9 million gesture of
defiance towards the Commonwealth, and the Prime Minister rounded off the week
with the announcement of the Senate election date November 21 which is sever,
weeks away or perhaps I should say almost rounded off the week, because in fact
the Pria1Te Minister is here to do that now.
Q. Prime Minister, could I start talking to you on this issue of law and
order, and I stress it's a loose covering term. Now you have foreshadowed
some new legislation, but you have shown reluctance to use existing regulat ions.
Now are you going to apply the law to those young men who have failed to
answer the call-up? If so, could I ask you when't
PM Well, yes, we are going to apply the law to young men who have failed
to answer the call-up and, indeed, have already begun to do so. Th-ere was
a case in Adelaide last week, if I remember rightly, and other ones will be
coming along as the wheels of the law grind and I don't grind them. The
Attorney-General and others do. But you spoke of something called " lawi and
order" which has become a journalistic kind of a headline. What I have always
said we needed to do was to protect the civil rights of the majority and that
is the way I prefer to put it.
Q. I am going to come on to that specifically in a moment, Prime Minister.
On the point of prosecuting those people who failed to answer the call-uro, would
I be right in understanding there may be some 103 such prosecutions in the
pipeline?
PM I think less than that. I haven't got the figures in my mind. The
Minister for Labour and National Service or the Attorney-General would have
but my recollection is rather considerably less than that.
Q. And would they be imminent enough to see them before the Senate
elect ion.?
PM I believe they would follow the ordinary course of the application o! the
law. We would not be hastening them nor delaying them. a 0 2
Q. In the norml procedure of time, would you expect they would come up
before the ' 3enate election?
PM I am sure some will. One has.
Q. So we could see some more young men in gaol because of this prior to
the Senate election' 7
PM That would depend on the Courts' consideration.
Q. Prime Minister, the other point where you have shown some reluctance
to prosecute is in those who are inciting others to break the National Service
Act which is, or could be a breach of the Crimes Act. Do you intend to take
action in that area?
PM This is a different area. I think we had a ijress conference once at
which you were present at which this matter was raised. And the Attorney-
General later traversed that particular ground, indicating that he had in
those kinds of case to be quite sure that he would be on proper legal grounds,
and provable legal grounds and he also had to take into account the whole
of the public interest. On the one question you asked me first, I can give you
a specific answer. On the second one, I can only refer you to w'hat the
Attorney-General has already said.
Q. Coming on to this point which you described as offending the civil rights
of people-. Now, firstly, do you want new legislation because of any increase
in the incidence of such off ences?
PM I think we do. We are limited in the area that our own legislation can
cover because the States cover quite an area of it. What we have got to do in
this field is to properly allow dissent to be held and expressed and at the
same time protect the people who aren't interested or mixed up in that from
being annoyed or having their own rights interfered with by that dissent.
Q. The point I was making there was the incidence of such offences. Now,
you want to legislate further because of a rising incidence of such offences?
PM I think to prevent a rising incidence. We have had, as you ' know,
incidents where people have invaded the Labour and National Service C~ ffice,
torn up the records, intimidated the civil servan~ ts working . behind the counter
and poured ox blood or something on the floor. We have had incidents where
people have invaded the office of the Minister for National Service and
locked him in. We have had incidents where people have invaded Mr Bury' s
office. The incidents are there. They weren't there before. I think there
are insufficient penalties to prevent that kind of offence. 9 e
Q. Looking through some of th-. various -: tatutes, both State and Con-onwealth,
it seemed to me there were quite a few acts which covered such
violations or apparent violations.
PM Well, I don't think they do myself, and the Attorney-General doeSn't
think they do either. Now let's put it this way. If, in fact, you are wro-ngIa
in your legal assumptions and you are not a legal man
Q. Quite right.
PM and the Acts don't cover them, then the Attorney-General would be
right in seeking to see they were covered I think.
Q. Yes, but I am specifically asking you on this point because you have
spearheaded this campaign. Now, just for a cou-ple of examples I don't
wiant to go reaching into the statutes too long, but on the point o! going into
Commonwealth offices, Ministers' offices, there is a Section 20, of the
Commonwealth Crimes Act which specifies that " any person who wilfully
and unlawfully destroys or damages any property whether real or personal"
. two years' imprisotument.
PM Yes, that's right. Now, you would not wish to have two years'
imprisonment.... you are asking me now to try and translate the law anvd
I am not a legal man. I can only take the legal advice that is given to me.
This I think is something which requires a jury trial and, from memory,
two years is the penalty this is from memory. Now what we would want
to do would be to make a greater penalty than exists at the moment for
trespass or for preventing people from using roadways for preventing
citizens from using roadways, and see that it was a penalty which was
sufficiently severe to stop it.
Q. But even on that, there is a Police Offences Act which covers unaut~ iorised
demonstrations and people who don't go away when they are told to are liable
to up to three months and,: or $ 100. This wculd -3eem to be adequate'
PM Have you ever heard of people being fined more than $ 2 or $ 5 or
something of that kind for sitting on roadways arid preventing people fromn
using them, or for unauthorised entry?
Q. But, really, Prime Minister they are different charges such as
vagrancy, and Police Offences Act covering riotous behaviour I'm talking
specifically about the Crimes
PM Well, really, what you are saying now to me is this, that in your
opinion you thinik there are enough laws already to cover the kind of offfence
of which I have spoken * 1s ; 4
Q. No, I am saying there appear z) be enough laws to questionñ it.
PM Well you are saying that you think there appear to be enough laws to
question it. I am saying that the legal advice that I have is that it would be
necessary to bring in an Act to provide penalties for the sort of offence,-of
which I have spoken, and it -would also be very necessary in bringing in that
Act to see that one didn't take away the right of people to dissent or to
congregate to dissent. Now, it ought to be perfectly easy to arrange that
people can congregate for dissent but that they can do it without interfcering
with other people's rights, without letting off stinkc bombs in post officer, for
example.
Q. P rime Minister, why do you make this move now rather than some time in
the past say twio years ago?
PM I think the incidence of these incidents has been increasing, but you may
remember that two years ago I did indicate then that I fe I t some moves along
these lines were necessary.
Q. You now say they are increasing. Ycu said earlier that you didn't k11now
that they were increasing
PMA Oh, now wait a moment.. . You are now going back to two years
Q. No, no, no. I am talking about earlier in the irt erview when I as'.-ed you
if the rising incidence....
PM I know you did but you said.... rising incidence since when"' Since last
week or something? I think that since two years ago there has been an 1increase
in this kind of activity.
Q. Do you have any evidence of any increase s'f
PM Well, just recently I suppose we had the refusal of some Moratorium
marchers in Sydney to obey the instructions of the police. That's a State
matter. We have the invasion of Mr Hughes' ownn home.
Q. You are talking about specif ic things, and in 1967 and 196C...
PM I though that you wanted me to talk about specif ic things.
Q. The point is that we have had these things happening for four or five
years. Now you say there is a rising incidence, and I asked you if there was
evidence of this. S
PM And I thought I was answering you because in the last few weeks I have given
you two instances of two things which have happened.
Q. Couldn't we go back to the visit of President Johnson or Marshal 7Ly and
say, well, there were certain things happening then. Is there an overall increase
i numbers, for instance?
PM I can only tell you you don't have to believe it, you obviously don't; but I
can only tell you that I believe there has been an increase in there kinds of
incidents. Now, let us suppose there hasn't been
PM Well let us suppose there hasn't been. Would that mean tha'-t you still didn't
need a law to pr event them?
Q. No, the point I was questioning you on, Prime Minister, was whether there
was evidence cf any increase. You now say it is an observation on your part
that there has been. an increase.
PM This is right.
Q. I think the overall criticism that your opponents direct towards you on
this is that it is olitical. Now what do you say to that criticism"
PM I say that it is not political. I say that if Parliaments are going to function
properly, then they are going to make laws after they have been elected and that
those laws should only be changed if a government is changed or if a government,
through Constitutional methods, decides to change them that they shlould
not be altered by people seeking to bring pressure outside of the ? arliament on
individuals by attacking their privacy, on the public by interferinga with their
use of public facilities, on the Government by taking over the streets. Th1is
obviously must be stopped, or else you could get to a situation such as Thappened
in Germany where, under the guise of dissent, H1-itler's Brownshirts took over
the streets and terrorised people they didn't likl-e or who disagreed with the~ ri
and eventually overthrew the government. Now, I would think most people of
Australia of eithe r political party would agree w~ ith what I have just said.
0. 1 think your opponents might say this is why it could be political because
you judge popular support for such a move.
PM Our opponents by which I presume you mean the Labor Party'.. 0 0 a / 6
Q. Well. . the Labor Party
PM The Labor Party would say I am being political in what I have just said
because I think that most people would support it. Well, the onldy answier I
can give to that is that I believe in it so strongly that I believe it should be
attempted to be done if a minority of people sup-ported it. It could always be
changed by Constitutional means if the Labor Party wanted to, if they had the
chance.
Q. Prime Minister, I would like to move to Vietnam and a good linkiing point
seems to be conscientious objection. Ncw, of course, you agree a man has a
right to follow his conscience if he objects to a war, and have legislated accordingly-
And you would agree, I am sure, there are some circumstances where a soldier
must follow his conscience rather than an order. Do you agree with that'-
PM You are going to sort of talk about Nuremberg trials if you are going to
bring in Nuremberg triat stuff we could go on for a long, long time, and one would
have to say, yes, there must be instances where according to what was laid
down at the Nuremberg trials, a soldier can't excuse himself because he has been
given an order to do something......
Q. Yes, well, My Lai would be I don't vwant to labour that point. " What I
am trying to set up is that on these two points, there is room for conscientious
objection.
PM There is room for conscientious objection to bearing arms at all. As you
say, we have legislated for that in two ways. ' We have legislated to enable a
man to claim conscientious objection to bearing arms and to come before a
court, and we have subsequently extended that to say that if he doesn't do it,
we are prepared to do it on his behalf. Now, there is then a ques-tion of whether
a man should have a conscientious objection to a particular war. I do;.' t believe
that he should. I believe if he has no objections to bearing arms then the question
of saying, " Well, I won't fight in Malaysia. I wion't fight in Germany. I won't
fight in Vietnam
Q. Well they are not saying that, in fact. Th-ey are saying Vietnam.
PM If that is admitted, it must be admitted for any theatre that anybody says
they have conscientious objections about.
Q. All right. Well how can you feel so strongly about this point when.-it is a
matter of conscionce?
PM Because there is no conscientious objection to bearing arms -or to fighting
or to war. This then is merely a matter of judgment, or alleged to be a matter
of judgment as to bearing arms in a particular theatre of war. But, of course,
as you know, we have also legislated to prevent anybody really being faced with
that dilemma. if they genuinely have it. 9 / 7
Q. You are referring to the CMF?
PM I am referring to the opportunity people have to join the CMF.
Q. But don' t you invite young men to gamble when you provide this lottery?
PM You say young have all young men got this conscientious
objection? I don' t think we are inviting young men to gamble at all. I think
all we are saying to them is, " Look, if you have conscientious objections to
bearing arms, there is a way in which you can have that tested. If you think
you are going to be called up and you feel you will have conscientious objecziua iiow
tOVietnam, maybe tomorrow to Malaysia, OK, join the CMF and then you won' t
have to have those conscientious worries.
Q. Don' t you think it' s reasonable that a young man, not wanting to go to
Vietnam and not wanting to go into the CMF which takes up a lot of time, might
look at that lottery and say " I've got six chances out of seven of avoiding it".
PM You used the words " not wanting" which is quite different from a genuine
conscientious objection.
Q. Well I didn' t give any reason why he might not want to. We are talking
about conscientious objection.
PM But you said some youing man not wanting If he is not wanting to do
it, and that is as far as it goes, then it is up to him, isn' t it to judge his
chances. If he has got a really, genuine, deep conscientious objection to it,
then he has an opportunity to avoid a confrontation and getting into difficulty.
Q. Prime Minister, I wonder if this might not prove to be an academic
argument. I wonder whether you intend to send any more conscripts to
Vietnam?
PM What do you mean?
Q. Do you intend to send any more conscripts to Vietnam?
PM At the moment, the situation in Vietnam is that one of our battalions
is being withdrawn. It is coming back and some supporting troops. You
are asking me what will happen regarding the two battalions that remain there
after this one is withdrawn. I can' t give you an answer to that because it
depends upon the progress of the Vietnamisation and the capacity of the
Vietnamese to look after themselves. But if you are saying will we replace
the other battalions that are up there when they in turn come to be withdrawn,
you are asking me to make a guess as to what situation will have arisen up
there and how strongly the Vietnamese will be able to look after themselves. / 8
Q. It's conceivable then that no riiore conscripts may go to Vietnarn'i
PM You said that and I didn't.
Q. But you don't disagree with that?
PM How could I disagree with that? Supposing the Paris peace talks were
successful, and -aeace started tomorrow"' Let's conceive that. Then, of course,
no more troops of any kind would go to Vietnam, but you are ask.-ing me to say
what is going to happen in the future when nobody can tell you what is gofing to
happen in the future.
Q. You foreshadowed the withdrawal of the Eighth Battalion six months ahead.
PM Yes, we foreshadowed it when the Americans foreshadowed their own. We
joined in that withdrawal. I haven't seen any other similar foreshadowing because
uf Vietnamisatio-n. But let's turn it round the other way. You must conceive
there will be more conscripts going to Vietnam?
Q. You say I must conceive there will be
PM. Well if I must concede that I can conceive there won't be, you muct
concede that you will conceive that there will be. You are talking about soomething
we don't know in the future.
Q. Well, I think we could make a simple point that there is a real chance
that no more conscripts may go to Vietnam?
PM I wouldn't miake that simple point at all.
Q. Would you like to be optimistic about that i
PM I wouldn't make that simple point at all. 1 Simply cannot tell you vfhat is
going to develop in Vietnam. All I know is that we would like to have our troops
all of them cut of Vietnam as soon as our objective was achieved, and thet
is of allowing the South Vietnamese to be strong enough to look after themselves.
Now, when that will happen I can't tell you.
Q. Well, let's talk about something happier, -Prime Minister. Mcrney, for
instance. Do you think Sir Henry Bolte has been..., do you thirnk:-he acted
responsibly with this move on the payroll tax the $ 9 million?
PM Well he didn't let me know that he was going to do it at any stage. I don't
want to say whether he acted responsibly or irresponsibly. I don't know what
was in his mind. But all I can is that it was quite a surprise since at tiie last
Premiers' Conference, all the offers that the Commonwealth made to the
States which increased very, very considerably the benefits to the States 0 / 9
were made on the condition that the 3tates did pay payroll tax. I-lw, Sir Henry
Bolte didn't agree to that, which means there was no agreement either as to him
paying payroll tax or as to us to paying any of the offers that were made. The
other States did agree.
Q. This whole area of Federal/ State financial relationships seems to be in
pretty poor shape at the moment. Now, can you patch up the problems or do
you think it requires a rebuilding job?
PM I am interested to hear you say it seems to be in pretty poor shape at the
moment. I have got some figures here on this which show that the States are going
to get $ 291 million more this year than last year through various fields. This is
a very great percentage increase in their funds, deliberately done by us to
enable them the better to finance their schools and hospitals and the other
responsibilities they have.
Q. But don't you think this Bolte move would indicate it is in poor shape. You
ate calling a special meeting next week.....
PM Oh no. I am not calling a special meeting next week on the Bolte move.
Q. On Federal/ State financial relations?
PM No, I am not calling it on Federal/ State financial relatiorships.
Q. Could you tell us what the meeting is?
PM It is to consider the receipts tax and the areas in receipts tax rnon-exiz.; e
areas and excise areas....
Q. Wouldn't this add to my argument?
PM I don't think so.
Q. Receipts tax is part of Federal/ State financial relations?
PM. Sure. But the fact that there is such a meeting to find out how best the
Federal Government can help the States and in what areas the States can help
themselves, would, I should have thought, indicate that the relations were
working fairly well and fairly smoothly.
Q. I am surprised that you should say that because particularly as you had
to back down before the Senate on the receipts tax.
PM Well, that' s right, but has that got anything to do with the fact
that we are having a meeting to find out how best in co-operation we can
overcome that difficulty?
Q. I thought it would have a lot to do with my earlier question that
Federal/ State financial relationships were in some sort of a mess.
PM just because a Senate votes against a proposition which we bring in
at the request of the States again showing co-operation in order to help
the States, again showing co-operation, doesn' t, I think, show that Federal/
State financial relationships are in a mess.
Q. Isn' t that a dangerous argument because an argument could be made out
to show cause for a double dissolution when a government is not able to put
its measures through the Senate. But you have said, " We 11, we were doing
this on behalf of the States". Couldn' t you take that to the point, that
argument of saying perhaps at the next Budget, " Well the Commonwealth
is happy but the States need more money, so we are going to lift taxes for
the States?"
PM No, this was a specific measure, the receipts tax one, and you are
seeking to translate a specific measure which came into being as a result
of an unexpected High Court judgment in a particular field, you are seeking
to translate that into the whole field.
Of course, if the Commonwealth brought in a taxation
Budget of some particular kind, and the Senate went to the unusual lengths
most unusual and I think, improper lengths, of disallowing it that would
create a very serious situation. But they would need to disallow the Budget.
Q. Prime Minister, I have judged time badly. I would like to skip through
a few more things fairly quickly. Talking about the Budget, the last Budget
you described as possibly being one of the great Budgets, despite the fact
that you introduced more indirect taxation which is generally regarded as
being an inequitable tax. / 11
PM Well we will see what the fut're says about it, but it was a Budget which
did a number of things. One was to greatly increase the amount of fina:-ce
available to the States to the extent that a third of our entire Budget is going
to finance the States and more than a third of the increase in expenditure.....
this to pick up the problems which the States had been indicating, or to
help to pick them up. It reduced direct taxation in a meaningful way. You
can argue whether it should have been less on $ 10, 000, but throughout the
range it reduced it in a meaningful way which was the promise we had made.
It introduced indirect taxation which, if I may take issue with you, is not
generally regarded as an inequitable tax. Indeed, you will find that nearly
all countries in Europe, for example, are moving towards indirect and away
from direct taxation, and the last Labor Chancellor of the British Government
made a very strong speech showing that indirect taxation was not inequitable
when that Labor Government moved towards more dependence on it.
Q. Now just one other point that intrigued me out of that.... you said at the
time that if people wanted to drink more wine and drive cars and smoke, that
was their business and they could pay the extra taxes because cf it. But I
wonder by what principle you tax moderate people more lightly than you tax
the people who want to drink and smoke and drive?
PM I think the principle I would advance would be this.... that there is a
certain amount of money left in people's pockets after they have paid direct
taxation, after they have paid their income tax. That is the same for all
people at a given level of income. Now what they do with that money is their
own choice. They can save it all if that is what they wish. They can spend
whatever part of it they wish to spend on cigarettes or on wine, and this is
a choice that they ha ve as to how they use the money that is eft in their
pockets after direct taxation. And one of the tenets of Liberal philosohy is
that people should have a right of choice rather than be told by an overriding
government everything they have got to do.
Q. Don't you think people have exercised that choice as to the general way
in which they will lead their lives and the people who drink and smoke will
continue to, even with this extra imposition?
PM If they do, that is their decision.
Q. Haven't you discriminated against them because of their way of living?
PM No. We have given them a right of choice.
Q. Prime Minister to close. You have got the Senate election coming up.
How confident are you about the election?
PM Oh, I am never confident about elections, either confident that one will
win them easily or that one will lose them. I think people that talk about
elections before they are held are always rather silly.
Q. Let me ask one more question on this. Do you think it matters more
how you go vis-a-vis Mr. Whitlam or do you think it really matters as to
the seats and the votes and the general counting of the election?
PM As far as the wellbeing of the Australian people goes, L think what
really counts is how the Liberal Party goes as against the Labor Party.
Not me as against Mr. Whitlam or the other factors you mention. What I
feel is that the people of Australia will see a continuance of advancement and
a continuance of improvement under the Liberal Party that they won' t under
the Labor Party, forgetting me and forgetting Whitlam.
Q. Do you think the Press and the public might see it in terms of
Gorton versus Whitlam?
PM I don' t know what they will do, but you asked me what I thought was
the really important thing, and I think the really important thing is that
Australia should continue with the type of Government which has given it
such great advances for the last twenty years.
Q. You don' t think the minor exchange of seats which might come out
of it is going to matter very much?
PM I wouldn' t think so. I think that mathematically in any case there
will be a very marginal exchange of seats.
Prime Minister, thanks very much for talking with Four Corncrs.